from the past, can avoid the conviction that unless the proper remedy be applied, the overthrow of your political system is inevitable?

SPEECH

On the Bill making further appropriation to bring the existing war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable conclusion, called "The Three Million Bill;" delivered in the Senate, February 9th,

1847.

[THE Bill making further appropriation to bring the existing war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable conclusion being under consideration,

MR. CALHOUN rose, and thus addressed the Senate: Never, Mr. President, since I have been on the stage of action, has our country been placed in a more critical situation than at present. We are not only in the midst of a very difficult and a very expensive war, but we are involved in a domestic question of the most irritating and dangerous character. They both claim our serious and deliberate consideration, and I trust that before this session closes, late as it is, they will both receive a full discussion. It is due to our constituents that the actual state of things in reference to both should be fully understood. For the present, I propose to consider the question which is more immediately pressing,-How shall the war be conducted to bring it most advantageously to a successful termination? Or, to express it a little more fully,-How shall it be conducted to enable us most advantageously to effect all the objects for which it was made? For it is only by effecting those objects that the war can be properly said to be successful.

There are two ways in which the war may be conducted. The one is, to push on offensive operations until Mexico is compelled to yield to our terms. The other, to take a defensive position, and to maintain and secure the possession of the country already in our military occupation. The question which I propose to consider is,-Which of these two plans of operation ought to be selected? It is a grave question-in my opinion, next in importance only to the war itself. I have given it my deliberate consideration, and the result to which I have come is,—that we ought to choose the defensive position. I shall now proceed to state the reasons upon which this conclusion is founded.

I believe it is the policy best calculated to bring the war advantageously to a successful termination; or, to express it more fully and explicitly-for I wish to be fully comprehended on this important question-to bring it with certainty to a successful termination, and that with the least sacrifice of men and money, and with the least hazard of disastrous consequences, and loss of standing and reputation to the country. If I rightly understand the objects for which the war was declared, I feel a deep conviction that, by assuming a defensive attitude, all of them may be effected. I say, if I rightly understand; for, strange as it may seem, those objects, even at this late day, are left to inference. There is no document in which they are distinctly enumerated and set forth by the Government, and, of course, they can only be ascertained by viewing the messages of the President in reference to the war, in connection with the acts of Congress recognizing its existence, or for carrying it on. I have examined them, and particularly the message of the President to Congress, recommending that Congress should make war,-for the purpose of discovering the objects for which it was made, and the result is, they appear to have been threefold: first, to repel invasion; next, to establish the Rio del Norte as the western boundary

of Texas; and thirdly, to obtain indemnity for the claims of our citizens against Mexico. The first two appear to me to be the primary, and the last only the secondary object of the war. The President, in his messages, did not recommend Congress to declare war. No. He assumed that war already existed, and called upon Congress to recognize its existence. He affirmed that the country had been invaded, and American blood spilt upon American soil. This assumption was based on the position that the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of Texas, and that the Mexicans had crossed that boundary to the American side of the river. This he affirmed was an invasion of our territory.

The act of Congress reiterated the declaration that war had been made by the Republic of Mexico, and thus recognized the Rio del Norte as the western boundary of Mexico, and the crossing of that river by the Mexicans as an act of invasion. Hence, both the Executive and Legislative branches of this Government are committed to the fact that the Rio del Norte is the western boundary of Texas, and that crossing it was an invasion on the part of the Mexicans. To repel the invasion, and establish the boundary, were then clearly the primary objects of the war; but, having got into the war, the President recommends it to be prosecuted for the other object I have mentioned that is to say, indemnity for our citizens-a recommendation, in my opinion, proper; for while we are engaged in war all the differences between the two countries ought, if possible, to be settled. These appear to me to be the objects of the war. Conquest is expressly disavowed, and, therefore, constitutes none of its objects. The President, in addition, recommends that we shall prosecute the war, in order to obtain indemnity for its expenses; but that, in no sense, can be considered as one of its objects, but a mere question of policy: for it can never be supposed that a country would enter upon a war for the mere purpose of being indemnified for its cost.

VOL. IV.-20

I hold, then, Mr. President-such being the objects of the war-that all of them can be accomplished by taking a defensive position. Two have already been thoroughly effected. The enemy has been repelled by two brilliant victories. The Rio del Norte is held, from its mouth to its extreme source, on the eastern side, by ourselves. Not a Mexican soldier is to be found there. As to the question of indemnity to our citizens, such has been the success of our arms that we have not only acquired enough for that, but vastly more, even to comprehend, great as they already are, the expenses of the war, if it should be judged to be a wise and just policy on our part to make Mexico responsible for them. Here arises the question, Shall we hold the line we now occupy, and which we cover by our military forcescomprehending two-thirds of the whole of Mexico,-embracing the valley of the Rio del Norte on the west side, as far as the Sierra Madre, and on the north to the southern limits of Lower and Upper California and New Mexico-shall we hold all this, or shall we select some other position better calculated for the object in view? I am not prepared to discuss this point. I have not the requisite information; and if I had, it would not be necessary, with the object I have in view. What I propose to discuss, in the absence of such information, is,- What considerations ought to govern us in selecting a defensive line? These must be deducted from the objects intended to be effected by taking a defensive position.

The first and leading consideration that ought to govern should be, to select a line that would fully accomplish the objects to be effected in making the war; avoiding the appearance, however, of taking any portion of the country on the mere principle of a war of conquest. But what may be required in reference to this consideration may be enlarged by the others I will now proceed to state.

The first and most important of them is,—that in se

lecting a defensive line, it should be such as to possess, in the greatest degree, such natural advantages as would require the smallest sacrifice of men and money to defend it; and among others, such as would afford every facility for drawing promptly supplies of men and provisions from the adjoining country. The next consideration in making the selection is, -that the country covered by it should be convenient and desirable for us to possess, if, in the ultimate adjustment of the difference between us and Mexico, it should become the established boundary of the two countries. I go further, and add, that it should be such as would deprive Mexico in the smallest possible degree of her resources and her strength; for, in aiming to do justice to ourselves in establishing the line, we ought, in my opinion, to inflict the least possible amount of injury on Mexico. I hold, indeed, that we ought to be just and liberal to her. Not only because she is our neighbor; not only because she is a sister republic; not only because she is emulous now, in the midst of all her difficulties, and has ever been, to imitate our example by establishing a federal republic; not only because she is one of the two greatest powers on this continent of all the States that have grown out of the provinces formerly belonging to Spain and Portugal ;—though these are high considerations, which every American ought to feel, and which every generous and sympathetic heart would feel, yet there are others which refer more immediately to ourselves. The course of policy which we ought to pursue in regard to Mexico is one of the greatest problems in our foreign relations. Our true policy, in my opinion, is, not to weaken or humble her; on the contrary, it is our interest to see her strong, and respectable, and capable of sustaining all the relations that ought to exist between independent nations. I hold that there is a mysterious connection between the fate of this country and that of Mexico; so much so, that her independence and capability of sustaining herself are almost as